How Feminism Hurts Men

[Nonsensei]

Its becoming clear to me that feminism is about as broad a term as "woman".

First we have the legitimate aspect of feminism. Pay gaps exist. Discrimination against women exists. Gender roles exist, and can be detrimental to women. These are legitimate complaints that need to be addressed if equality is to be achieved.

Within that subset seem to be three kinds of people who label themselves feminists.

1) Feminists that advocate actual equality, and will acknowledge that there are inequalities in society that effect both men and women. These people treat gender inequality as the problem, and don't focus on women's issues to the utter exclusion of everything else.

2) Feminists that only pay attention to the issues that effect women. These people operate, in my opinion, under the presumption that men's issues aren't worth addressing because men have all the advantages in life and all the power in society.

3) People who call themselves feminists, and promote their message by asserting that all men are potential rapists, males are a genetic mistake, and other pretty crazy shit. They also start massive amounts of drama over minor events, taking an invented issue and applying it to all men in the hopes of generating controversy. Though possibly small in actual number, they are the most vocal by far and get attention because of the dramatic value of their absurd assertions.

Its the latter group that confuses the issue of what feminism is the most. The first two are simply different outlooks on the same issue. The third is an intentionally inflammatory and insulting stance designed to promote a method that can never work and generate as much drama and attention as possible while doing it. This method is most commonly used by people attempting to make a name for themselves and cash in on that fame.

If that web is ever going to be untangled those who are driven by personal ambition and are willing to use feminism as a stepping stone to reach their goals need to be weeded out and labeled for what they are.

Trolls.

[Sargon The Grape]

2) Feminists that only pay attention to the issues that effect women. These people operate, in my opinion, under the presumption that men's issues aren't worth addressing because men have all the advantages in life and all the power in society.

It's less that "men don't have issues" and more a matter of having fewer and less urgent issues. Men don't have that whole "1 in 3 will be sexually assaulted" statistic going for them, after all. :) No doubt they need to be addressed, but as a man I'm pretty sure that something like "the expendable male" which doesn't even come up that often can probably be put on the back-burner until the rape epidemic gets under control.

[Nonsensei]

2) Feminists that only pay attention to the issues that effect women. These people operate, in my opinion, under the presumption that men's issues aren't worth addressing because men have all the advantages in life and all the power in society.

It's less that "men don't have issues" and more a matter of having fewer and less urgent issues. Men don't have that whole "1 in 3 will be sexually assaulted" statistic going for them, after all. :) No doubt they need to be addressed, but as a man I'm pretty sure that something like "the expendable male" which doesn't even come up that often can probably be put on the back-burner until the rape epidemic gets under control.

I think you have a problem there. Its going to be impossible to convince men to care about women's issues after so blatantly disregarding mens issues. "You aren't important, now care about me".

Yeah okay.

[Sargon The Grape]

I think you have a problem there. Its going to be impossible to convince men to care about women's issues after so blatantly disregarding mens issues. "You aren't important, now care about me".

Yeah okay.

You might want to get your eyes checked, because I wrote no such thing.

[Nonsensei]

I think you have a problem there. Its going to be impossible to convince men to care about women's issues after so blatantly disregarding mens issues. "You aren't important, now care about me".

Yeah okay.

You might want to get your eyes checked, because I wrote no such thing.

Yeah you did. When you suggest that mens issues can be "put on the back burner", to me that says they aren't important enough to address. What did you think it meant?

[Sargon The Grape]

I think you have a problem there. Its going to be impossible to convince men to care about women's issues after so blatantly disregarding mens issues. "You aren't important, now care about me".

Yeah okay.

You might want to get your eyes checked, because I wrote no such thing.

Yeah you did. When you suggest that mens issues can be "put on the back burner", to me that says they aren't important enough to address. What did you think it meant?

Are you seriously suggesting that "women and children first" is as urgent as fixing the rape epidemic? Something that happens in extreme situations versus something that happens a thousand times a day?

Being an "issue" doesn't give it equal priority.

[Jason78]

It sounds like you're suggesting that we put all other problems on hold until the rape problem is sorted.

[Sargon The Grape]

It sounds like you're suggesting that we put all other problems on hold until the rape problem is sorted.

I'm saying: prioritize, prioritize, prioritize.

[SilentFutility]

Yeah, that's exactly the same as women wanting fair and equal treatment under law that most men enjoy..

In western countries women recieve unfair and unequal treatment due to the sexism of some other people.
In terms of the law in most of these countries, yes, you are correct, they do recieve unfair and unequal treatment, in their favour.

The notion that any western woman is campaigning against a legal system which disadvantages them is absurd, because it doesn't. The only piece of legislation which I can think of is women not being allowed to fight on the frontline in most western countries. On the other hand, women recieve better treatment in multiple aspects of the legal system, and recieve far more gender-specific government funding for medical conditions, special women's careers programmes, etc. etc.

That is not to say that western women have no gender-specific issues, nor that they are not victims of sexism, because they are. This does, however, not come from the legal system.

Of course, this is not the case in many other parts of the world, where women are systematically mistreated by the state.

[Hopist]

I have been thinking about this Rebecca Watson elevator thing, and I really don't think it was cool.

It is about cornering somebody, body language and imposed intimacy, it is rude, well to me anyway.

If you find yourself in an enclosed space with someone you don't have a rapport with, and you use that situation to gain something from the person I think you are exploiting the situation.  In that situation I think light trivial banter might be the order of the day or maybe something serious but not too personal.

Your physical proximity does not equate to emotional intimacy, in fact if you are a stranger the physical proximity may well have crated the opposite of emotional intimacy in the other person, which may magnify the impact of anything inappropriate you say.

Ever have it happen to you? Stuck in parked car with someone while the driver nips out for ten minutes and you get asked something uncomfortable, or at a restaurant and you have the window seat and someone sits next to you on the isle seat blocking you in?  Exploiting those moments  is like a cheap salesperson tactic.

I think this guy should have tried banter, and then after they left the lift and there was a little distance between them, he could have then asked her his question.

In the guy's defence, some guys are really shy, inexperienced and socially inept, if you throw into that mix testosterone which can have a deleterious effect on empathy I am not surprised this shit happens all the time, the thinking of "great I got her alone at last, I feel safe, less exposed, brave, this is the right moment".

It might have helped if she had said no, and then proceeded to explain why she thought it was inappropriate to just him and not the world but it is not her job to mother him, especially if she was anxious.

[dgirl1986]

I liked what feminism originally was for. To fight for womens rights and to make them more equal to men in every sense. However, the loudest bits of feminism these days seems to be about placing women above men rather than equality. Note that I say the loudist bits, not all of feminism.

[Hakurei Reimu]

Do you know what Richard Dawkins do further by using his fame and importance?

He prevented Watson from attending a conference by blackmailing, 'if she is to be there, I am not.'

"I don't want her speaking" This is an order of an aristocrat not some scientist's or activist's behaviour.

Refusing to associate with some person is hardly blackmail. It was Dave Silverman's choice to invite Rebecca or not, and it is Richard's choice to attend a meeting with Rebecca or not.

Like your outrage to Rebecca Watson because 'she took atheism's name in vain' and dare to express it with something that you didn't like.

Well, yes. If Rebecca says something I think is stupid, I'm going to call it stupid. I'm not preventing her from speaking, but if she says stupid shit, I'm not going to kowtow to her stupid shit.

I've decided SOME feminists are making shit up. Get with the program.

Lol, it's interesting that you expect me to continue on some rule you set to be followed.

I expect you to follow the conversation as it unfolds, not your made up parody of it.

Especially if you think that you haven't touched anything about cited articles and at yhe other side of discussion, but just babbled about some internet personalities that annoyed you.

Given that it's the internet personalities are what I bear umbrage for, I don't see why this should surprise you.

He is late. Yes and that was what I meant with the description I gave about her. Basically she was doing her job, by jumping that bandwagon.

"Jumping that bandwagon?" If you meant "jumping on that bandwagon," that's nobody's job.

Without proof, or even a plausible pattern of bad behavior. She's on the Skeptics Guide to the Universe, for fuck's sake. I expected much better of her.

You 'expected' something from someone you don't know, because she is on some skeptic, atheist podcast?

Well, yes! I expect her to have basic critical thinking skills and knowing how to back up her claims. Because that's what SGU is all about!

Basically you expected her act in a way you approved, because she is an atheist and so you are. *Whistle. I am afraid you'll be disappointed  a lot in your life.

Nice strawman. What I expected her to do was be able to back up her claims that she was being threatened beyond that of normal internet noise. She has not.

Now you need to get aware of something. Watson DID NOT ACCUSE A PERSON. She told about a personal exprience that made her uncomfortable and may be a little alarmed for that moment. An experience almost EVERY WOMAN lives through at some time their lives.

Yes, and people are going to step on each others' shoes and make other people feel uncomfortable no matter what they do for as long as they are alive. You're not going to please everybody, and you're not going to be pleased by everybody. That's life.

#-o Ehh, If you are not intelligent enough to understand why is that written, at least do not pretend as if you have made some relevant statement.

It means that most people deserve the benefit of the doubt. You, however, have adequately proven that you are, in fact, a moron.

She said, "Guys, don't do that". And as I wrote to Plu, Watson is not in the same place with you or me -unless you are in a similar position I don't know you. Women like Watson constantly receive rape, death threats at the drop of a hat without any 'incident' like this one she lived through.

Like I said before, the internet has a way of turning people who are well-behaved in real life into total fuckwads online. Hyperbole is the rule on the internet. While there may be a few who would go through with such threats, they are completely indistinguishable from the empty posturing that is the background noise.

She is considered as an extreme and harmful personality in the society she lives in.

So you've moved beyond mind reading me and on to mind reading the entire society. Nice.

She hasn't seen him in her life. He is a stronger, bigger human being than she is. He is a stranger demanding a certain type of attention -at least he sounds like- from her after following her in to some point she is alone.

"DEMANDING" a certain type of attention? Being asked for coffee isn't a demand for anything.

She cannot know what he is thinking or really aim to do.

Welcome to life. You NEVER know what someone else is thinking or really aiming to do.

And it's perfectly understandable that she is annoyed with that. Why is it a fucking big deal that she talked about it?

Nothing, if it ended there. What was inappropriate was when she turned the backlash against her patronizing vlog post into an anti-feminist campaign against her.

A statement that she has, as of yet, not substantiated. Because I'm a fucking skeptic and have the damn gall to demand evidence to substantiate claims, esp. claims that an entire movement is festering with anti-feminism.

She is not made an accusation. She didn't claim that the man was after doing something harmful to her. She didn't claim he was attempting a crime. SHE JUST TOLD about her experience and WHY it made her uncomfortable. Do you get that?

Do you have the basic intelligence to understand the difference between an accusation made and some anecdote given to express an uncomfortable experience? Do you?

Yes, and I wasn't talking about the elevator exchange. I was talking about the online backlash and how that was indicative of an anti-feminist streak in the atheist movement. That's the only thing I ask her to substantiate.

Yes. Thunderfoot. Maybe not the rape, but he was sexually harassed when some moron put his head on a nude male body and passed it around the internet. He only lost his shit with direct threats on his family.

Fair enough. Not surprising either. But think about  the nature of threatening a woman with rape apart from all other threats some time will you?

The threat to Thunderfoot's family came in the form of publishing his particulars online with vague, but direct calls to action by the perpetrator (Dahwah Films, I think). And even then, nothing has come of it as yet. Thunderfoot communicated this with a short but stern warning, and last I heard that was the end of it: Dahwah backed down.

Again, threats of rape online are hard to take seriously, because hyperbole is the rule on the internet.

Sounds like a completely innocent encounter so far.

See above.

I have. I don't buy your explanation. I don't buy it one bit.

"A few days later, I was making a video about the trip and I decided to use that as an example of how not to behave at conferences if you want to make women feel safe and comfortable." And here she goes off the rails.

I am not sure how that's going off the rails.

Speaking for all women, for one, instead of it being a personal discomfort. Treating it as some sort of 'teachable moment' is another. Rebecca's encounter is exactly how I would want to be approached, by being politely asked, and with the option to politely turn it down.

You have to realize that ALL social contact carries some risk. You are going to be approached by people who make you feel uncomfortable for one reason or another. It's not your fault, and it's not theirs, either. It's just life.

You have no right to go through life not feeling creepy in every encounter. Some encounters are clearly threatening, and you can ask not to be allowed. Rebecca's encounter was not a clear threat — it was the most careful attempt to make social contact you could get at the moment, and bearing in mind the nature of the event, probably would be the fellow's last chance to make contact with Rebecca Watson during the event. It was worth the try, even if it wasn't successful. No lasting harm was felt by either party, and under normal circumstances would have been a non-event.

Why not, you are a mind reader yourself aren't you? Read your own your excuses produced by your cheap 'skepticism'. You are telling the exact thing you accuse her doing.

If you think that's what I'm doing, miss mind reader, then kindly go fuck yourself. The point was that Rebecca could NOT have know what the man was actually after, or know that the man knew that she had been up for 12 hours straight. The only thing Rebecca knows is that the man tried to ask her to coffee.

And that's exactly what she says actually. She says guys are like that and that it's not welcomed by most women in her opinion.

Again, Rebecca is projecting herself onto other women.

What you are doing is setting your own arbitrary rules on how some certain male behaviour should be taken.

Like Rebecca Watson?

It's perfectly normal that she -or any other woman- didn't like the way he approached to her. This is as simple as this.

And it was settled with a single word of refusal from her, as simple as that.

Nobody has to proceed along with what's OK with you.

Or Rebecca Watson.

Yes it's a very teachable moment.

No, it wasn't.

That's why she got flamed. She pretended it was a teachable moment, and it was not. She pretended that it was especially creepy, when it was not.

Your mind is reading more than anyone else's.

Given the response, I'd say it's experimentally verified.

It's not up to you or anyone else, what is creepy or not in a personal encounter with a stranger.

Yep, what's creepy to her need not be creepy to any other woman.

Rebecca has no right at all to expect that her life would be free of all creepy encounters, because everyone's standard for creepiness is different. You will meet all manner of people in life, and some of them will seem creepy to you.

Mind reading again?

That's what usually happens with flamage.

This time you are mind reading masses I suppose. WOW. What a hypocritical, self righteous fuck you are.

Go fuck yourself.

A woman is talking about a personal experience that made her uncomfortable, she said 'guys don't do that' made a video about why she thinks that shouldn't be done.

And it was rejected.

She is a useless, hostile cunt.

Her response to that resounding internet rejection makes her useless on feminist matters. The only person here calling someone a "hostile cunt" is you stuffing words into my mouth.

Millions of males

"Millions?" And how do you know they're males?

posting those psychopathic comments are just...you know...internet show.

Because that's what the internet is: a big show.

AND they don't represent anything at all. Right Hekurei?

It does. It shows that the internet is a festering cesspool of overly-hostile comments made by people shielded by their own anonymity, crave an audiance, and the loudest, most outragous and inflamitory speech wins. Has nothing to do with feminism, however.

It should have no affect what so ever on an individual, who actually received these threads without the 'incidents' like this one with her routine, but I guess this is too much for your cheap skepticism to think that could be one of the reasons why she was uncomfortable in the first place with something you are not.

I expect someone with any internet presence at all to have at least observed that internet personas are not real-life personas, and most internet drama is not actually drama-worthy.

Oh and if she was so stern, firm and emotionless about all this threats or anything she writes, this time you would be writing about 'what a cold bitch that cunt is', 'certainly something is wrong with her'. I don't need to read your mind. You have been telling yourself.

And again, you stuff words into my mouth. Kindly go fuck yourself.

"On reflection Dawkins decided..." Mind reading again or Dawkins is a personal acquaintance?

No, it was the clear point he was trying to make in his letter. It's called "subtext," that which is not clearly stated in black and white but readily inferred from the context of the letter.

Because right at this moment you managed to sound more stupid than everything your wrote above with your fantasy about some celebrity.

Only in your own mind.

Why didn't he write something reasonable on why he thought what she did was irresponsible, but instead he chose to humiliate another female poster from a muslim country with that?

"Muslima" was obviously made up, even if her social conditions aren't, you fool. And sarcasm is a quite respectable and time-honored mode of criticism.

Yes, she was harassed by anonymous trolls, because they sensed a high-profile and easily-butthurt target. This is typical troll behavior, trying to get a rise out of Rebecca, their chosen target. When she fed them (and knowing her personality, she is exactly the type who would feed trolls), they reacted with glee and doubled down, because that's what trolls do.

Knowing her personality?

Listening to Rebecca shoot the breeze with her fellow SGUers for 300+ hour+ episodes, I think I have a good handle on her personality.

Anyway, I'm getting tired of trying to chop down all the strawman you're trying to set up, so I'm cutting it off here. The bottom line is that Rebecca turned her singular personally creepy encounter into something bigger than it was, was flamed for it, turned it into a real-life thing, and got burned for it. Encounters like Rebecca's are actually unavoidable in any society with free association rights. You can't blame someone for approaching someone else, because that's how you make the transition from 'stranger' to 'aquaintance'. Conferences are social events, and you are going to get people who want to approach you for all manner of purposes from picking your brains to, yes, having sex with you.

[mykcob4]

I don't believe for one bit that feminism in any way hurts men.
Promoting equality and ethical treatment of the female gender can't hurt men in any way. A real man isn't immasculated by treating women with respect.
That is all feminism is, treating women with respect in all phases of life.
If you have a problem with treating a women with respect than you are weak to begin with.

[Hakurei Reimu]

Normal feminism, which promotes equity and ethical treatment of women, is fine.

Radical militant feminism, which promotes the idea that men are rampaging beasts looking to have sex with women and can't behave civilly around women, is not, as it is anything but equality.

[Smartmarzipan]

Normal feminism, which promotes equity and ethical treatment of women, is fine.

Radical militant feminism, which promotes the idea that men are rampaging beasts looking to have sex with women and can't behave civilly around women, is not, as it is anything but equality.

Unfortunately, the two are often conflated.